Do we need to land a fish!

[Philip]

While I accept that for some the “take” alone is enough, the landing of a fish is important to me. I have to have properly landed it for me to count it as caught. That said I am not adverse to trying to shake fish off in the edge …the solitary Bream that comes right at the end of an otherwise blank and you don’t want to go home with a stinking wet net for example ! I have shaken off some quite substantial fish when I think back. That’s not to sound complacent or that I didn’t think they were worth landing, it was more to do with where I was fishing. If the handling of the fish will be difficult, steep concrete banks for example; and I have seen the fish, know what it is and don’t really want to weigh it or take its photo then shaking it off or unhooking it in the edge saves allot of hassle both for you and more importantly the fish.

It does remind me of a rule of thumb that I worked on as a kid and sort of still follow to this day which was that I had to have touched the fish for it to count. This stems from the days of tiddler snatching when you measured your days success by how many you caught. Inevitably some fell off as you were swinging them in and led to endless arguments with your mates as to whether it counted or not so the “have to touch it” rule came into force. This worked quite well although it did lead to some quite amusing incidents of kids literally throwing themselves in, in an attempt to do a goalkeeper-esque finger tip flying dive trying to touch a Roach that had unhooked itself on the in-swing so that it counted towards the days total.

...Ah yes, those were the days !

 

[spoonminnow]

deleted

 

[108831]

Possibly,its an unusual take on angling,counting fish hooked,my own thoughts are to count fish caught,in each species,even though my my interest is to catch net fish,not necessarily specimens,but big enough to pull the string...

 

[markcw]

They dont count in a match if not landed,
Even if you dont fish matches, pretend that you are in one ,that way you will land more fish because you are making the effort to net/land them,instead of thinking "ah well that fell off but it still counts"

 

[spoonminnow]

deleted

 

[108831]

Ahh,sorry I forgot you are from across the pond,your fishing is a different beast to ours,in fact,in the main,fishing is more brutal,thats not decrying it,predator fishing tends to be thus,when I tell you that both fishing clubs i'm a member of have a rule stating unhooking mats are mandatory,one doesn't like you to swing any fish out,even a one ounce one you will see the difference,apart from Pike hook sizes are relatively small,the vast majority use hooks smaller 10's,many mucu smaller,often 16/20's,its amazing how different and diverse our sport is around the world,our predator anglers often fish bigger hooks,your fishing idealogy is interes and understandable.

 

[spoonminnow]

deleted

 

[sam vimes]

You actually catch fish using #10 hooks?!! I rarely use a #8 and only for very small lures used when ice or float fishing. Even tiny fish get hooked on #6 and #4 hooks.

UK coarse (freshwater) fishing is vastly different to North American freshwater angling. I very rarely use a hook bigger than a size 10. The vast bulk of my fishing is done using size 14, 16 and 18 hooks. Whilst light lure fishing is enjoying a bit of popularity in the UK at the moment, it's not something that has the huge following and tradition that it has elsewhere in the world and especially in North America.

 

[108831]

As Chris above,I fish hooks down to 22's,used to be 26's squat fishing...

 

[rayner]

You actually catch fish using #10 hooks?!! I rarely use a #8 and only for very small lures used when ice or float fishing. Even tiny fish get hooked on #6 and #4 hooks.

[/QUOTE

It's mostly tiny perch I hook dropping occasionally to 8oz I have hooked a few smaller pike around a couple of pounds but on the whole small perch. I use si10s long shank fly hooks with the barb crimped.
The 4s and 6s that folk seem to prefer to me are well over gunned.

 

[markcw]

As Chris above,I fish hooks down to 22's,used to be 26's squat fishing...

And if it was really cold it would be half a squat on the hook.
I still use 22 for pinkies,
My son went to America to visit relatives ,I gave him an empty pack of Tru Turn hooks to take, these are made in America.
He went to the tackle shop,asked if sold Tru Turn hooks and was told yes, showed the packet to show what size he wanted, the guy didnt even know they went that small. The hooks were a size 18. Needless to say son came out empty handed. Yet can get fly hooks around a size 20 from the super bass shop

 

[markcw]

As Chris above,I fish hooks down to 22's,used to be 26's squat fishing...

Hope Krang doesn't find out about big hooks and lures on this thread, otherwise it will be ruined.

 

[rayner]

I'll use 22s in winter, commercial fish will accept a bigger hook in my experience small hooks and finer lines see more bites. For me, there's no alternative to smaller hooks in cold weather. I don't now use 26s even when I did it was a rare occasion like when I would hook joker. Back in those days, a 24s were more relevant to use for me. I still have a wallet full of hook packets with 24s I doubt I will use them but you never know.
Fishing with joker I would have 24s with the spade cut off and dubbed for 20 to the pound or even smaller roach on canals and the fourtyfoot. I think the only difference was in my head I doubt the fishes were truly bothered. Confidence was and is all.
That's just the way I rolled in the 70s.

 

[terry m]

For me it has to be in the net to count.

No ifs, no buts.

 

[rich66]

I have to have banked it for me to count it, unless I’ve deliberately unhooked it in the water at the edge which I do on occasion.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

To my mind a fish has to be "landed" for it to count.

I remember some time ago when fishing was under some scrutiny that John Bailey (I think it was) who suggested that we don't need to land a fish and was proposing that we not use s hook but tie the bait to the line and "feel" the bites.

Thankfully that idea never caught on. . . .

 

[steve2]

Yes it was John Bailey. Judging by the amount of fish he catches and unhooks the idea never even caught on with him.

 

[rich66]

To my mind a fish has to be "landed" for it to count.

I remember some time ago when fishing was under some scrutiny that John Bailey (I think it was) who suggested that we don't need to land a fish and was proposing that we not use s hook but tie the bait to the line and "feel" the bites.

Thankfully that idea never caught on. . . .

I used to do this with the goldfish in our pond when I was little.
Silly idea glad it never caught on

 

[chevin4]

I am a specialist angler if I lose a fish at the net which is obviously a specimen I take it very badly indeed ok you could estimate the weight but for me unless it is landed it does not count. I remember a friend losing a huge chub at the net the fa t what he had caught a fish of 7lb 12oz 15 minutes before was no consolation as this fish was bigger. Although I did not lose the fish personally I know full well I would be absolutely gutted if it was me.

 

[steve2]

The only way to know that weight of a fish is to land it and weigh it. I have lost track of the amount of 20lb carp/pike, 2lb roach etc. that I could have caught if I hadn't landed and weighed them. They always look bigger in the water and always weigh less on the bank.